Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY | MOVIE REACTION! | FIRST TIME WATCHING!
Vložit
- čas přidán 29. 08. 2023
- Full reactions to movies, early access and polls: / movieswithmary
⭐ Follow me on⭐
Twitter - / marijchu
Twitch - / marijchu
Instagram - / marijchu_
⭐Support the channel and get full reactions⭐
Patreon - / movieswithmary
😊 Thank you so much to my Patrons! 😊
Alonso T
ChrisD
Daddy Dogg Abbott
Eddie L.
Elzar
Gary W.
George
Grendel
Jake M.
Jasperr
Justin H.
KnightHarbinger
Kogs
KremitLeFroge
Lorni23
luke is the blacksheep dot com
Mark D
Mikeebee
Noby
Philip A
Robert
Scott M.
Steven
Taggart
The_Bagel_king
Edited by: Eduardo Lima: / eduardofernandeslima
#react #reaction #2001aspaceodyssey
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
-- The late, very great Arthur C. Clarke (author of 2001: A Space Odyssey)
A saying so famous, it's now referred to as "Clarke's Law." Technically "Clarke's Third Law," but this one is by far the best known and most frequently quoted. ACC is arguably as famous for that as for his fiction writing, if not more so.
@@danieldickson8591 .... One of the best homages to Clarke's astute quote was an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation - "Who Watches The Watchers?" Captain Picard has to convince a medieval-like civilization that he does NOT possess magic.
Strictly speaking, he didn't write a book called 2001, he wrote a short story, "The Sentinel," that inspired Kubrick and he worked WITH Clark on the screen play. Clark subsequently wrote the book series based on the screenplay they collaborated on.
Not really relevant to the movie, because kubrick and wrote and directed the movie while the book was being made. And kubrick had final say over the book and screenplay. 2001 is very loosely based on his short story, that's it. Using Clarke's explanations for the movie is invalid.
You beat me to it.
The special effects in this film are magnificent and would stand up today. Even more amazing when you think there is no CGI at all.
Not only is there no CGI, but they didn't even have most of the bluescreen compositing effects used in movies like Star Wars. It's almost 100% in-camera.
I would even argue that it looks that good because it's not CGI + greenscreen. Real camerawork with real objects being filmed in real lighting. If done by great professionals, it basically can't be more close to "real" if you don't have real spaceships to film ;)
And human beings haven't been to the Moon yet. (edit: To be clear, the film was created from 1964 and released in 1968. Apollo 11 landed on the moon in 1969.)
@@Ocrilat Back under your rock with you
@@Ocrilat I'm sorry, but that statement is incorrect. Humans have indeed been to the moon. The first manned mission to the moon was Apollo 11, which took place in 1969. Astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin became the first and second humans to set foot on the lunar surface during that mission. There were a total of six manned missions to the moon as part of NASA's Apollo program, with the last mission, Apollo 17, taking place in 1972. Since then, no humans have been back to the moon, but there are plans for future manned missions, including NASA's Artemis program, which aims to return humans to the moon by the 2020s.
It's incredible that this still looks so good.
It is filmed on some of the best film stock in history, it better look good
Practical effects. All built.
high standards and bothering to do an actually good job are somethin,' aren't they?
I believe the animals in the Dawn of Man sequence...that Mary thought might be aardvarks...are tapirs.😁👍
Tapirs are South American, not African. They look like Peccaries. Which are also not African.
@@alaninsoflo I am pretty sure they were tapirs...and that Kubrick chose them because they were not native to Africa...at least that is what the internet suggests. As you note...none of the animals it could be come from Africa.
@@alaninsoflo They're definitely tapirs. Peccaries don't have the long nose that the animals very clearly have in the movie.
You really should check out the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact". Its a fantastic movie. It answers some of the questions posed by this movie.
"SOME" of the questions lol
@@rammsteinrulz16 I'd say it answers most of the important ones. For further elucidation the novel 2010 does a really good job. But both the movie and the novel are far more grounded than this artistic mess.
"You really should check out the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact"." Nah, she shouldn't.
answering questions isn't always a good thing, and definitely no in this case
No, it doesn't-- it gives Arthur C. Clark's answers, not Kubrick's, which were never 100% compatible. Like The Shining, the ambiguity is there on purpose. 2010 is not in the same league as 2001, like Dr Sleep isn't comparable to The Shining. (The Monkees are not The Beatles, lol!)
My friends and I spent an entire evening arguing about the ending of this movie and what it all meant.
Alcohol was involved.
2010: The Year We Make Contact extends the story nicely while being much clearer about what’s happening.
Notice how the lights were in the wrong place in the hotel room - the floor instead of the ceiling? The aliens were trying to give Dave a comfortable, familiar environment, but got some things wrong. In the novel, the food they provided him was nutritious but quite blue.
At the end, Dave has been transformed into a being that still has Dave’s memories, but is so different from him it can no longer think of itself as ‘Dave’. They lay this out in 2010.
There is a sequel to this movie..... "2010 The Year We Make Contact" .... Not as "Artsy"...... But explains a lot........ Helen Mirren is in it...... Plays a Russian Ship Captain. I would recommend you watch it. Will carry on the story..... Thanks for your reaction......
Yes, it’s a decent sequel and well worth a watch. I hope that Mary has it on her watch list!
I'm curious, do you also talk with double ellipses?
It also contains the best sequence to instill a dread of space itself.
@@blechtic Mystery is a good thing..... Ponder...............
Clarke has a cameo feeding the pigeons in front of the white house.
Along with "Ran" by Kurosawa, this movie impacted me more as a child than anything else. I was fortunate enough to watch it on a big screen. If you are near a theater that has a classic movie series, they will often screen 2001 in full 70mm and it is thrilling. Don't miss it.
The first time I saw this was in a little village movie theatre. Just as HAL is going 'I'm afraid I can't do that, Dave' the film got stuck in the projector and caught fire.
Spiced it up no end.
Hal was programmed to share information. But in order to protect the secrecy of the mission he was reprogrammed to lie to the 2 astronauts who were awake. This drove Hal to have a nervous breakdown. The antenna that failed was how Hal was monitored back on Earth. It was like a psychosomatic illness that made Hal think the link was failing, but actually Hal needed to cut himself off from Earth so no one would realize he was failing. No one could be allowed to see that a Hal 9000 was making mistakes... but it was the humans that caused the problem.
I really hope you enjoy this one. It’s one of Kubrick’s best, but it’s definitely not for everybody.
True! Super duper slow paced, which makes it hard for some to watch it (like me). A modern editor would make this movie about 45 minutes long and still have all the crucial content, but then that would not be Stanley Kubrick.
It may not be for everyone, but this film is family-friendly, with none of the sex, nudity, bad language and graphic violence that pollute today's films!
@@allenjones3130That's true.
Definitely, people in lower Intelligent ranges will not comprehend or find it valuable as a TOOL or understand or find entertaining.....
Many people lack the patients to be able to learn beyond a certain level.
WILL BE TRUE "FOREVER"
= if there is such a material thing....
We children of the 60s LIVED to go to a showing of this movie, in Cinerama, and ingest... substances that enhanced the enjoyment of the stargate sequence. FAR OUT MAN!
One of the coolest interpretations I've ever heard about this movie: *the black rectangle represents the movie screen* (the black rectangle presents the apes/humans/people who view it with information, which gives them new knowledge). So in this interpretation, people think the end was Dave travelling from the MOVIE world into the REAL world.
The screenplay was co-written by Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, one of the original 3 Grand Masters of Science Fiction (the others being Isaac Asimov and Robert A. Heinlein). It was partially based on Clarke's story "The Sentinel". As the production progressed, Clarke wrote a novelization, which was actually released before the film. In the 1980s, with '2001' a major cultural milestone in cinema, Clarke returned to the story to answer the questions people had been asking for over a decade. He wrote '2010: Odyssey Two' which was also swiftly made into a film written, photographed, and directed by Peter Hyams titled '2010: The Year We Make Contact'. It stars Roy Scheider (Chief Brody from Jaws) as Dr. Heywood Floyd, John Lithgow, Helen Mirren, and Bob Balaban. It also brings back Keir Dullea as Dave Bowman and Douglas Rain as the voice of HAL 9000. Clarke wrote two more Odyssey novels before he passed, '2061: Odyssey Three', and '3001: The Final Odyssey'.
Back in the 1960s when the film was released, a lot of people would use all sorts of "substances" before going to see the movie...and they would have wild trips during the end sequence when the Monolith basically becomes a stargate and Dave Bowman goes from astronaut to Star Child.
THE ENDING explained: After entering a space wormhole that begins in Jupiter, the astronaut reaches the end of the universe where he meets God, in the form of the alien monolith, and he ages and dies there because his ship has no fuel to travel back to Earth, but God sends his soul back to Earth and places it inside a newborn baby.
I'm very excited that Clarke's Rendezvous with Rama is finally going to be made into a film directed by Denis Villeneuve.
@@hughjorg4008if that’s the ending that works for you, great, but that is not the ending that is better explained in the book.
Another good SciFi Space movie: "Forbidden Planet". Loosely based on Shakespeare's "The Tempest"
Also, "The Right Stuff" for a good historically-based movie
That neoclassical interior with the lit up floor is one of the most strikingly beautiful set designs ever.
This movie was released on April 2, 1968. On my birthday, June 2, in a small rural East Texas town, it was held over in a rare 70mm theater and my birthday party was to go see that movie. It was glorious. As to the short video phone call to his daughter, that was to indicate that, by 2001, space travel would be so common that calling home would be quite a normal thing to do for a traveler. Hence all the other "casual" additions like "how about a cup of coffee." The vision was that by then such travel would be so routine that yeah, the amenities would be little different from any other sort of travel. Sadly, that never happened.
The movie was inspired by a short story written by Arthur C. Clark, "The Sentinel." It inspired Kubrick and he worked with Clark on the screenplay. They envisioned AI run amok, and how such a mission would be a media event, as most of the space travel was in the mid 60's. I honestly think it's extremely unfair to view either the story, or the astonishing craft involved in making the movie, without that context. All effects were practical effects, whether with miniatures or full size. And the miniature work was VERY carefully crafted to accurately map movement in space.
So give it due respect. It's a seminal SciFi movie that heightened the genre enormously. With perhaps only one or two prior exceptions, Forbidden Planets and The Day The Earth Stood Still, Sci Fi had been basically fantastical kid stuff or sex stuff. Kubrick and Clark elevated the genre to previously unattained heights.
"I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that." still gives me chills decades after I first saw this film.
I saw this film in 1968 on a curved Cinerama screen. It was publicised as a Cinerama movie but it really was 70 km projected on a wide screen. I was 12 at the time. I loved the music and the beautiful machines. It still is a feast for the senses. You felt something really deep was going on even though you didn't understand it. I left the cinema stunned. Kubrick opened eyes, ears and mind.
Genuinely stoked to hear that you’re watching ‘From the Earth to the Moon’! I’m not sure if you’re reacting to it on CZcams or not (really hope you will be), but just glad that another person is discovering that amazing series. One of my favorite ministries of all time.
Agreed. FTETTM is very well done. The Episodes dealing with the Apollo 1 fire, development of the Lunar Module, and Apollo 8 are really memorable.
it's a great show
I can also highly recommend the documentary _Apollo 11_ from 2019. It is little more than a collection of contemporary footage from 1969 illustrating the full mission. The quality is excellent, and there was footage in it that had basically not been seen since 1969. It's mesmerizing, and breathtaking. When that fuel gauge stops at 16 seconds and you hear Buzz call out "Contact light" you realize your heart hasn't been beating for the last 30 seconds.
I can attest that as a kid who was enthusiastically watching every American space launch, seeing this in a theatre in 1968 as a 14-year old was an overwhelming experience, at the same time totally exciting and totally confusing. Like no other experience.
Great reaction! The monolith represented extraterrestrial intelligence without using a goofy alien costume. It appeared as a lab experiment by aliens to jar humans into a higher intelligence. They put a monolith on the moon so it could detect that the humans have gotten to the point of space travel. Then they were drawn to Jupiter and Dave was warped to a Zoo. The scenes where Dave was in a house was created for him as a habitat to be studied in. There was a side story regarding HAL and failed AI. The sequel is more of a standard movie that explains a lot and is worth watching.
I've always felt the "house" Dave was in was basically something like a cosmic womb and as old Dave is aging and deteoriating Starchild Dave is gestating and developing. When Starchild Dave is ready for birth old Dave dies.
My father adores this movie. He was 25 when it came out. The critics were heavy on both sides re: the story, but everyone agreed the f/x were top notch.
Great reaction i love this movie it really changed science fiction movies forever. Ground breaking in its scale, its storytelling, its ambition, and its technical innovations, the film cemented Stanley Kubrick’s status as a filmmaking genius and made an impact still felt in Hollywood today.
This movie broke ground in numerous ways, not least of which was in its inversion of established storytelling tropes. This is a masterpiece of cinema. Keep up the good work Mary.
A fantastic film! That made us think about our origins. For this Marvel/DC generation it might seem too slow and gimmicky. But in 1968 it was a powerful experience. This 'monolith sound' is a contemporary orchestral composition: Requiem by György Ligeti.
99% agreed. But what is more gimmicky than those Marvel/DC movies? 😉
They had exciting movies back then, too. Don't try to act like lots and lots of people weren't turned off by this movie, and the advertisements even catered to the LSD crowd.
I bristled at your comparison to today's comic book movies. They're *so* different-although the Marvel and DC movies overall are factory-perfected versions of standard-issue summer-blockbustet action movies, and 2001 is practically an inaction movie. It's all about pholosophical ideas and stunning visual and auditory art, whereas the superhero movies are about stitching together ingredients designed to sell the greatest numbers of tickets and merchandise to the greatest numbers of people. They are created specifically to engender endless sequels and prequels to keep the money rolling in, and every Kubrick movie is a unique, singular personal vision designed to make people think and question what they think they understand. I know billions of people love the comic book movies, and that's great, but the comparison is like trying to compare Lisa Frank neon folder designs to Picasso or Van Gogh or Chagall's works.
@@DavidMichaelCommer Let me explain: I could call this the 'Tik-Tock generation' or the 'CZcams generation' to say that the slow pace and so many questions they provoke in the viewer (I in particular only understood the ending with the tutorial) that this generation Z ( whatever) maybe they would press 'STOP' in the second part of the film.
I imagine that Kubrick used the immense repercussion of the book Chariots of the Gods? by Erich von Däniken, which the audience could use to infer about the Monolith.
The letters in the name HAL are one letter away from IBM. I think Kubrick was a little suspicious of the coming computer revolution & A.I.
You will get endless interpretations of what 2001 is about. I suggest you watch the sequel " 2010: The Year We Make Contact" as it provides some answers to what happened in 2001. It is a different style of movie but very enjoyable. There are two other great 1960's sci fi movies that you will find amazing for the story and production quality. They are "The Andromeda Strain" and "Fantastic Voyage".
There's no need for endless interpretations. Arthur C. Clarke wrote this story for Stanley Kubrick. Simply read the book and you will know exactly what happened in this movie. The novel explains it in great detail.
I remember going to watch it with my parents as a little kid in early 70's, because I was a fan of anything "space". We all left confused. Then I read the book by Arthur C. Clarke and then I got it.
Great reaction, Mary, this movie is not for everyone, I'm glad you watched it. There's a "sequel" to this movie: 2010: the year we made contact, that provides a lot of background on this artsy movie.
I highly recommend the sequel 2010. It's a much more conventional movie, but I think it's really enjoyable, and the callbacks to this movie are really excellent (especially seeing it at the time it came out, some 20 years after the original). There are also several book sequels that further explore these ideas.
Please schedule 2010, it is the finale to this movie.
seconded! Its a fantastic sequel, and just a fantastic movie overall
Though not by Kubrick it's a really good film and explains a lot of the mysteries from 2001.
Still an amazing movie even today. if you show this to someone now without telling them it was released on April 2, 1968, they'll probably think it was done just a few years ago.
The only obvious tells are the audio quality and the way they styled their hair. That's pretty much it, everything else in the film still feels so out of reach.
i always want to remind our reactor friends that all these movies they're watching were made to be seen on the big screen. this movie for example was stunning and even awe inspiring on the big screen, while from here i could see how watching on a small screen it must seem slow and overblown. interesting how different generations are going to experience media in the future. i'm glad i saw so many modern classics in the theater, rather than on tv at home. anyway, keep on rockin
I think you did a terrific job of following the storyline. A lot of people get to the end of this film and are annoyed, but you were intrigued. That's what Kubrick wanted you to feel.
The little girl who played Dr. Floyd's daughter, in his videophone call to Earth from Space Station V, was portrayed by Stanley Kubrick's daughter Vivian.
2001 is definitely a thought provoking film. It's meant to be analyzed and mulled over. Part of why it's a masterpiece is that it is truly art. It invites the audience to find meaning in its imagery and themes and symbology. By the same token it is sometimes criticized for being vague or ambiguous, though I personally think that's mostly an excuse to avoid having to actually participate.
There's a lot to unpack in 2001, much of which isn't immediately obvious. For instance, the famous shot of the bone being tossed in the air which match cuts to that orbiting satellite: One can easily make the connection that this is a transition between man's earliest form of technology to his most advanced, and that is perfectly true. However, what the movie doesn't make instantly clear is that the satellite is, in fact, an orbiting nuclear missile platform, which alters the meaning somewhat, as we are cutting from man's first weapon to his most advanced weapon.
The Monoliths seem to be markers that initiate the next stage in our evolution as a sentient species. Our first encounter with a monolith sparks the dawn of our technological ascendancy as we discover and learn to utilize tools. When our mastery of that technology allows us to leave the cradle of Earth, we discover the next monolith on the moon, which starts our journey into the stars. The signal from that monolith points us towards the monolith orbiting Jupiter. When we reach this monolith, we enter the stargate that begins the next stage of human evolution. What that is the movie doesn't say specifically. Considering how we see Dave moving through his own timeline at the end, transitioning through the phases of his life until we see him on his death bed before starting over reborn (what some refer to as the "starchild") perhaps the next phase of evolution is man transcending time and mortality, but there are many possible interpretations.
It's a movie that grows with each viewing, and the more you think about it, the more there is to consider and ponder. What more could you ask for from a piece of art?
6:35 LOL People didn't know what to make of this movie in 1968. We would call this a peaceful first contact with aliens. In 1968, almost every (but not all) on screen of aliens except for Star Trek and Doctor Who was "aliens are evil. We must kill them before they kill us." With so little dialog or music, our brains search for visual realism. This was a realistic depiction of what 1968 thought the future would be with spacestation, rotating habitats, space hotels and commercial flight (Pan Am was a real international airline prior to bankruptcy in the '70s.)
I read the (legendarily opaque and difficult) novel in about 7th grade and was baffled by much of it. Six months later this played at a revival theater and I convinced my brother-in-law to take me, thinking the movie would explain the book. As it turns out, the book explains the movie.
I watched this movie while high yesterday. Such a good movie. The shots are so often long and still and it almost makes it feel like a motion comic. Very good.
Aw, the first cinematic exploration of A.I. and it's possible pit falls. You should react to the sequel 2010. Not as good but answers many questions.
That really depends on how you define AI. Certainly there were earlier films about constructed entities that were intelligent, and about technology getting out of control of humans. _Metropolis, Frankenstein, When the Earth Stood Still,_ and _Forbidden Planet_ are a few noteworthy examples.
Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)
@@damanfromtn 1970, after 1968.
@@markhamstra1083 I wasn't thinking about when it was made, just remembering this popular movie about AI taking control of the world.
Mark 6:32. When I was very young and naive about the very existence of "Stoner/Drug Culture" it would confuse me whenever members of it would talk about this movie, "Walt Disney's Fantasia" and others, as being "trippy movies" as is, yet they would add the extra element of then wanting to be high as they watched such movies!
I've seen reviews from people who say that producers have been able to make movies based on "fever dreams" and "acid trips"! To me, that means that thanks to them, the rest of us need not need to ever get intoxicated to see such visions because we've seen them in movies. Ergo, we can develop our own imaginations without the personal risk.
When I was in 7th Grade, my English teacher had us talk about our impressions of the movie. I was convinced that the airplane known as the "Vomit Comet" was used or that it was made on "Skylab"! Then he told us how old the movie was and so "Skylab" was out of the question!
Creationists, didn't like the movie, as you can imagine!
Even before the first "Star Wars" movie came along, there were some non-intellectuals that thought it was too slow and didn't have any action. While some were impressed enough to wish that they could grasp it better! None of my classmates then started a physical fight about it either, as to who was right and who was wrong! 😊
Mark 1:07. Mary, hi there! 👋 Before I continue with viewing the video, I wanted to share something with you. Ahem.
I've read "The Sentinel" short story and I've read the novels and "Marvel Comics"! I've seen the movies of course! So I appreciate a certain scene in a certain "Chocolate Factory" movie as well as the prologue of "Barbie" more than those that never have seen this movie! Whenever I detect that "Also sprach Zarathustra" is about to play, I anticipate a homage or parody of this movie! When it is just used for dance music, that's a change of pace for me!
Somewhere out there, someone made a funny love scene set to the theme, because the couple were trying to "dock" in zero gravity! 😄
Since the special effects team that made this movie also made the Bruce Dern movie "Silent Running" some consider it a "spiritual successor" to this movie! They weren't expecting the actual sequel! Bruce, is Laura Dern's father, by the way. That movie always makes her cry.
This movie also inspired "Star Trek: The Motion Picture" and since I love this movie I love that movie too! 🖖
Beginning in the late 1980s and ending in 2003 or 2004, I was able to attend conventions in Oklahoma City and Tulsa. I got to meet with Gary often enough that he recognized me on sight and we would have long enough conversations that he would feel the need to remind me that I have so many autographs of his, and that I might give the others a chance to sign for me. Or someone would remind him that there were others waiting to see him! When he and Frank Gorshin sat at the same table, it was always a funny experience! 😁 I eventually got to meet Kier, because Gary had convinced him how much fun "Trek Expo" was! As a team they promoted the anniversary of this movie. Separately, Gary signed "Star Trek" stuff and Kier signed "The Starlost" stuff.
Well, I hope now that I'm about to enjoy your video! I needed to write all of that before I risked getting biased afterwards or during. 😊
Just a note. I believe the quote about magic was actually made by Arthur C Clarke. The author of this screenplay/novel. "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
The late Roger Ebert, famous US film critic, attended the film's premier at the Pantages Theater in Los Angeles in 1968. He wrote that famous film star of the 1950s and 1960s, Rock Hudson, who had also been at the premier "stalked down the aisle, complaining, 'Will someone tell me what the hell this is about?''"
The actor playing POOLE is Gary Lockwood who played Gary Mitchell 2 years earlier in an episode of the Star Trek TOS called "Where NO Man Has Gone Before.
This was part of an era in filmmaking where the conversation had no conclusion. It was about the discussion over coffee and wine and cheese … an exploration of thinking.
This why so many boomers are upset about current media. I had this in theaters as a child.
Big Hug and Kiss to you and hubby… love that baby to pieces.
All the years i thought the little kid on the phone wanted another baby to play with, but from africa, Then I saw "Serengeti darf nicht sterben" and bush baby is the nickname for a family of little primates officially called Galagos. They fit in your hand and are like half body and half tail.
Matte paintings instead of CGI. When the flight attendant went upsidedown, the entire set rotated to create the illusion.
The Monolith on the Moon was buried the same time that the smaller one of Earth opened the proto humans minds to the concept of using tools.
Did you notice the subtle set design in the space station? The far end of the set curved up. The ceiling noticeably curved up.
A lot of the mystery concerning HAL is resolved in the sequel, 2010, which is also worth watching!
Trivia about the novel: it & this movie's screenplay were being written at the same time. Dave's journey through the Monolith, & what happened in that "hotel room," are considerably less confusing in the novel!
It's worth a read.
The Monoliths were the technology of an advanced civilization, which took an interest in cultivating sentient life on Earth.
They transcended 3-dimensional space-time.
They helped proto-humans think at higher levels.
They transported Dave Bowman to another dimension, where he lived out his life and was transformed into a higher being (The Star Child).
Kubrick's direction adds wonderful imagery and poetry to the story.
The musical score is magnificent. The Blue Danube Waltz scene is timeless.
The thing that helped me to understand this a bit more was that I had read a lot of Arthur C Clarke's books. Then you get an understanding of the meaning of the ending. I love this move bit I understand that it is hard to take in.
As others have suggested, definitely watch the sequel "2010: The Year We Make Contact" (1984), also written by Arthur C. Clarke who does a couple of cameos, along with Stanley Kubrick doing one. 🖖👽
Mary, if you want to see a good "movie" about the first Moon Landing, I recommend 2019's "Apollo 11", which includes a LOT of original footage of the event from 1969.
I was 2 1/2 years old when the moon landing happened, and it is my oldest memory. I vaguely remember it happening, and my family kept telling me just HOW historical the event was, which is why it stuck out in my memory.
"Apollo 11" has a ton of restored footage from the first time mankind set foot on the moon, and I highly recommend it.
There’s a small theater in my area that plays classic films once a week and they had a Kubrick month a long time ago. Seeing this film on a large screen is amazing. I had to walk out twice because I was so overwhelmed but Kubrick definitely had a way of bringing life to film
I love the Hal segment (I mean, it’s the most iconic part of the film) because it’s genuinely unsettling despite it literally being a conscious being acting in self-defense if you remove all ambiguities.
I was sorry Mary edited out the part where Hal sings the song while Dave "kills" the computer. One of the most unique and best villains in cinema history.
Well, HAL doomed itself when it faked the fault on the antenna. It's conflicting operating parameters made it psychotic. Not that HAL was to blame for that but neither was the crew.
Stanley Kubrick began his career as a Photographer, for LOOK magazine.
He is a Master of the Visual craft of Film, and often compared it to Music.
The child on the Video call (Floyd) was Kubrick’s daughter
2001 pushed Physical Special Effects of late 1960s to their Zenith …
and challenged directors and creative film artists to improve their craft.
-
George Lucas and Steven Spielberg were inspired …
and film in mid-1970s and 1980s began response to challenge.
-
Many of technologies shown (tablet/iPad, etc.) were achieved in last 10 years.
Yep! 2001 always holds a spot in many top "10 films of all time" polls. It's slow paced for today's audiences, but intentionally. I think it's supposed to be meditative in that way. But wow is it beautiful to behold! Especially when seen projected in an awesome theatre. I was fortunate enough to see Christoper Nolan's 70mm film restoration at IMAX for the anniversary a few years back. It was honestly emotional.
Much like Orson Welles did with "Citizen Kane", Kubrick more or less designed and executed the entire thing from the ground up and he was only a young man. No computers. Just intellect, will power and boundless imagination.
Mark 3:04. That scene is meant to represent the transition from Early Man's first weapon, a bone used as a club, to Modern Man's orbital nuclear weapons platforms! Debate continues as to whether or not that vaguely bone-shaped spacecraft is a (crewless) satellite (crewed) space station or a (crewed) spaceship! 😎
I've been told that the ending is fully explained in the book it's based on and in the movie sequel. From what I can remember he is transported to the alien world and is imparted with new knowledge, reborn and sent back to help mankind to continue on its evolution.
Part of the "charm" of not being explained is it leaves more to the viewer's imagination and is mysterious. Although I must admit the first time I saw it I was frustrated and confused which is common reaction.
One thing I like in particular aliens are not trying to invade and take over the world which seems to always the case in every sci-fi movie or book I've read.
To fully appreciate this movie I recommend reading the book version too. It explains why H.A.L. malfunctioned and what was the trippy light show was about.
To summarize the H.A.L. story line, they told him that the mission is too important to fail and to keep secrets from the crew, but help the crew at the same time. He felt these goals were counter to each other and it caused him to glitch. So the solution he came up with was to kill the crew to get his programs back in line.
To summarize the light show, aliens caused humans to evolve into intelligence. And in order to communicate with us they lured out there and had one of us evolve into a high life form that could then go back to earth and start the next evolution of humanity.
At least that is what I remember. Been a while.
Fun fact! Kubrik and Clarke wrote out the outline for the story. Kubrik then went and made the movie and Clarke wrote the book at the same time. So they are close but exactly the same.
I recommend 2010 as a sequel to the characters. It’s important to see how Floyd is affected by his decision to send the mission. I also can’t believe that 2061 hasn’t been made. There’s so much good stuff in it: pot holing on Halley’s Comet, a hostage situation on Europa and a race to the rescue.
To appreciate and understand this more, then I feel reading the book might help. I've read them all and they're fantastic. What's written in print is easier to visualise and understand especially when you can imagine the images from this masterpiece.
If your still in a space themed mood, but real life stories then i'd recommend October Sky set in late 1950's and Hidden Figures set in the early 60's, both great biographical dramas.
I first saw this in 1968 with my buddies. One of them was a stoner (think "Shaggy" of Scooby Do). We sat down right down in the front row, and when the wormhole sequence began, he started shouting at the top of his lungs, "It's blowing my mind! It's blowing my mind!"
Fun fact: Velcro was invented in 1954, but it wasn't well known to the public until NASA started using it in the 60s. So, it was still a rare thing to the movie audience in 1968. Some of the other product placement was also rather a new movie concept, such as Bell Telephone, Hilton, and Howard Johnson's on the space station, as well as the Pan Am orbital shuttle. All those were important corporations in 1968.
The US put a man on the moon the next year. It had take less than a decade to get from a 50% rocket launch success rate to having a man on the moon. As a teenager, I truly believed, no doubt in my mind, that certainly in another 30 years, by 2001, we really would have a permanent moon base, a torus space station, and Pan Am business flights into space. I had high hopes that I'd be able to make the trip. But instead...we have no moonbase, we have no torus space station...we don't even have Pan Am anymore. Bummer.
"Open the pod bay doors, HAL," is a popular meme when a computer seems to be defying your intentions.
Great video! I believe he's evolved/reborn into a higher being at the end. I think they portray this is in an allegorical way, like it's not just Dave's evolution but mankind's.
It's as if all of humanity is the protagonist of the film.
The monoliths are Von Neumann probes, self replicating machines, that have influenced he evolution of humanity. There was a sequence cut out at the beginning of the film that explains some of this.
By the way this reaction is a good example of why you're my favorite reactor, curious, thoughtful and engaged. Glad you enjoyed it and recommend you do the sequel 2010.
Mark 6:27. That scene with the stewardess doing what she did that impressed you has been homaged in "Guardians of the Galaxy: Vol. 3" but in that movie, the girl in white was a test subject being tested as if she were a hamster! 🐹
Those animals are tapirs, and how a tropical, rainforest dwelling, semi aquatic tapir got to the African Veldt I have no idea. A bushbaby is a squirrel-size, insectivorous primate found in Africa.
They certainly knew how to do psychedelic effects and depict altered altered states back in the '60s.
Glad you enjoyed this cinematic masterpiece. Considering the "current events" of the time, namely the decades long "space race" for the moon between the US and USSR, this was a big hit.
Hearing that you're watching "From the Earth to the Moon", I can only hope that you'll eventually post reactions to it. If not, then I'd be curious to hear your thoughts on episode 5, "Spider". It was my personal, and sentimental, favorite.
The sequel, 2010, is both worth seeing on its own and answers some questions from this.
It should be noted that this remains probably the most realistic depiction of what being in space is like. Also should be noted that Arthur C. Clarke, who worked on this, was the person who supposedly came up with the idea of geosynchronous orbit satellites, which make up our whole global communication system. So he knew space.
First time I saw this was in the most luxurious, best equipped movie house I've ever been in before or since, the Cooper Cinerama in Lincoln Nebraska. Sound reproduction & acoustics were superb as was the curved screen and clarity of the cinematography. A real treat. Gave us the best isolated movie experience.
You really need to read the book to understand what is going on in this movie. For example in the first part the ape men are slowly going extinct. The monolith alters their minds and DNA to make them more aggressive so they learn to hunt and acquire new food sources. The problem is that this aggression will eventually distroy them once they have advanced technology. This is hinted at in the scene where the ape man throws the bone up and it becomes a space station. The book reveals that the station is filled with nuclear bombs targeted at the surface, as part of an intense cold war between the USA and USSR. The monolith on the Moon was buried there to prevent that distruction, by leading mankind to the monolith around Jupiter. This is so that a specimen of humanity can be obtained and altered to a more advanced form.
I read the book when I was 12, saw the movie so many times, but 50 years later I still don’t quite comprehend the ending. It seems like a meditation on time and the mystery of existence. In any case, the images are unforgettable. A movie ahead of its time.
Thanks for reacting to one of my top 3 movies of all time along with Blade Runner and Star Wars.
I won't give too much away but that wasn't a normal baby at the end. The scene directly preceding it gives you a clue about how the child was created.
And don't feel bad about not understanding the entire movie on first viewing as most people don't and it was meant to be this way by purposefully being ambiguous.
Kubrick wants you to come up with your own interpretation. And Arthur C. Clarke whose writings inspired the film said that if you understand all of the film's concepts after one viewing, he and Kubrick failed.
Knowing that, don't watch any explainer videos for this movie as they remove the mystery and destroy your chance of arriving at your own conclusions and discovering your own meaning of the film.
But please do react to the sequel " 2010: The Year We Make Contact " to find out more about 2001 including what really happened to Dave and Hal.
And don't worry as 2010 isn't nearly as ambiguous or layered as 2001. It's a completely different experience with a new director. While not as revelatory or groundbreaking as its predecessor, it's still a great underrated film in its own right and very much worth your reaction.
I was a kid when I saw this on TV for the first time and I remember feeling really disturbed by the themes. I even had a recurring nightmare about sentient monolithic stones, surrounding the house, silently watching me. My takeaway impressions were; robots are bad, AI is scary and space is terrifying.
However, one of the most uplifting and inspirational films I've ever watched on TV is a 2007 documentary called In the Shadow of the Moon. Whenever I feel down I like to watch the surviving members of the Apollo program tell their personal stories of going to the moon. Listening to old-timers such as Mike Collins, Buzz Aldrin, Charlie Duke, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan always makes me feel better and restores my faith in humanity.
This movie has been confusing people for over fifty years but it really isn’t as hard to understand as you might think. The monolith is simply a physical device that can be used to do virtually anything so its shape and appearance are unimportant. The Aliens use it to give the apes a little “push” on the evolutionary road. The moon monolith is a sort of alarm to let the aliens know when man has progressed to the point of discovering it. After the incident with Hal, Dave is drawn through a Stargate or wormhole to another part of the universe where he’s kept in an artificial environment patterned after memories of places he may have stayed while travelling as an astronaut. The final scenes are a clever way of representing the passage of time as he ages and is transformed into the “Starchild”. What the starchild is and what it means is the thing that’s most open to speculation and interpretation. There are plenty of possible subtle meanings and interpretations throughout the film but those are the main points.
My name is David, so of course "I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that" has been a personal meme for a long time.
Also, Cheech and Chong's "Dave's not here".
You probably need to watch it a few times to 'get' it. It works better on a cinema screen than on tv. It was actually made in 70mm Cinerama (large curved screen with 3 projectors) and as a kid I was lucky to see it as such on a new film print a week after it had been first released in July 1968. It was a breathtaking cinematographic experience. I have never forgotten it.
This movie was released April 3, 1968. The first moon landing was July 16, 1969. It was all very much part of the Space Age, an expression coined in the late 1950s soon after the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite on October 4, 1957. (It was known as Sputnik [traveling companion].) This movie caught the feeling that was "in the air" in the United States regarding putting people into outer space. The International Geophysical Year (there's a song with that title) which ran from the middle of 1957 to the end of 1958, contributed to the feeling as well. It was an international open forum on the sciences, and Soviet scientists were allowed to participate. From there, science fiction writers started to base their scenarios on technology that the IGY had shown could be developed.
“From The Earth To The Moon” is fantastic! “Apollo 13” (I can’t remember if you’ve seen it), “The Right Stuff,” and “2010: The Year We Make Contact” are some good movies.
The original release in 1968 drew mixed reviews from critics for many of the reasons you describe. Many didn't know what to make of it. But its original release was in 70mm Cinemascope meaning it took up an extremely wide field of view giving the viewers the feeling they were actually traveling through the Star Gate. Soon hippies started showing up and taking LSD timed to kick in when the Star Gate sequence started and the movie became a hit. MGM began marketing it as "The Ultimate Trip" and the rest is history.
I like the fact he got video calling and flat screen Tablets right in the film
And HAL take it one letter forward in the alphabet and HAL = IBM
This film came out when I was in 8th grade. I was fascinated by it -- the special effects -- the story -- Hal...
When the film was released were a year yet from landinfg on the moon.
Like you, I certainly did not understand that ending -- even after many viewings at the theater. I read the book and all became clear.
One hint, which I think you caught: Hal was so human that keeping that secret drove him mad; absolutely paranoid schizophrenic.
The ending is an evaluation of Dave to confirm he (humankind) was ready for the next evolutionary step.
My quick take. The monolith is either an alien transmitter of knowledge or the alien itself. Evolving man on earth, from apes to space travel, where they would eventually find the moon monolith. From there, the monolith sent man to Jupiter and through a wormhole. To be studied and sent back to Earth as the next level of evolution.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote this. He also wrote: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
The little girl is Stanley Kubrick's daughter.
Bush Baby (Galago) : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galago
I love From the Earth to the Moon, it's such a great series! It's a pity that you watched it off camera, far too few reactions for it are out there😅
Also, I agree with everyone that you totally have watch the sequel to this movie, 2010. It explains a great deal of what exactly happened in this movie, but not everything. Lots of the mystery is still left to speculation and I really love that balance ❤
2:03 "I love it when you see different species, living together in harmony."
2:10 [Species 1 pushes off species 2. Species 3 attacks species 1]
"Well ... that's nature too!"
Who ever thought of the iPad in the 60's had quite the imagination. A flat square display when most people had black and white tvs.
There is a reference to HAL in "Independence Day" were the startup screen on Jeff Goldblum's laptop is a picture of HAL's optic sensor and says "Hello, Dave"
Kubrick always respected the visual medium to which he dedicated his life's work. Nobody brought better visuals and camerawork to their films than Kubrick did, a master...even today, his ability to frame and pace is incredibly advanced.
Actually, your initial comment towards the ending was close to spot on. Kubrick usually didn't comment on his films because he wanted the audience to have their own interpretation. But for this film, he made an exception and gave one interview. Apparently, Dave was taken by god-like entities (represented by the shape-shifting lights) and placed him in their version of a zoo cage (the room that was supposed to be french decorated). Time had no meaning where they exist, so Dave saw his entire existence in that cage until his end when he sees the monolith on his death bed. The monolith was supposed to indicate a key point in human evolution (like when the monolith first appeared, and early man was provided the discovery of tools/weapons). From that point, he was returned to earth after he was transformed into the next evolutionary stage (the shot of him as a fetus) which having advanced, god-like powers. Some observers thought this movie was in fact, about the search for God. I watched that ending several times and couldn't figure it out (the monolith, i got) until i read about kubrick's interview.
It took about a decade and a half for the squeal of this movie to come out "2010: The Year We Make Contact" to help to somewhat clarify the meaning of 200: Space Odyssey. Mary you should diffidently watch the squeal because it does go a long way in understand 2001: Space Odyssey and you didn't have to wait 15 yrs. like the movie goers in 1968 did.
Add 2010 to your viewing list. It is an attempt to explain the end of 2001.
Regarding portrayal of the future. It's supposed to be 2001 and Dr Heywood still had to make an operator assisted phone call :) The habitat set was constructed like a hamster wheel. They would rotate the set in order to make it look like centrifugal force is simulating gravity.
The Dawn of Man scenes were filmed in a studio. The arid vista in the background was the result of rear projection on a large screen. The transition from a bone being thrown in the air to a satellite wasn't clear that the satellite was an orbital weapons platform.
Mary! The sequel, "2010: The Year We Make Contact," answers a lot of questions brought up by this movie. However, it's still pretty mind-blowing.
I LOVE the opening and it's counterpart in the film. The only two films that top this, not that pretty much anything from Stanley weren't great are Dr. Strangelove, and A Clockwork Orange. And you may have caught the Lucas Salute to Kubrick in the transmission of the Star Liner into the Space station and the Falcon into the Death Star. It was mind expanding in it's cinematography not to mention the story. A great sequel is 2010 which while not as well received was excellent a sleeper.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke, author of 2001: A Space Odyssey
When you read the book this movie was based on by Author C. Clark, he explains that the monolith is several things, one, an ambassador, a creator of life and a transport system. When Dave Bowmen went outside his space craft to go look at the monolith orbiting Jupiter, he was sucked into it and transported to a mock up science experiment created by the beings that captured him to study him but the act of transportation by such a fragile being caused his death when he went through it so he was given a gradual perception of himself as he would have been had he lived and went back to earth. But in Bowmen's case he was reborn because the advanced beings had a use for him which you'll have to watch in the sequel, (2010), to answer more questions you may have.
Last 2 paragraphs of the book 2001.
Bowman felt himself drifting off. He began to enter a realm where no man had gone before. His memory of the hotel suite flickered before him, then the Star Gate, and Discovery. His memory was being drained from his brain, but stored elsewhere. David Bowman was being reborn, but this time, immortal. Arrays of light and shape appeared before him and he saw that he would no longer need the Star Gate to travel through space. Incredible, new knowledge was coming before him. He felt like he was being watched over and protected, and knew that he would never be alone.
Before him, Bowman saw Earth, "a glittering toy no Star-Child could resist." Down there, alarms would be ringing and, the history man had known, would be coming to an end. A payload of destruction had been released and was slowly making its way across the sky. This was no match for Bowman's strength and he detonated the megatons while still in the air. He reflected on his powers as master of the world, and that he would have to decide what to do next.
I never was a 2001 fan (saw it in 1968 as a sophomore in college), so it was good to see you made it through to the end. My tastes are unrefined, though... I like engines to roar and whine in outer space. With blasters.😀
One interesting interpretation posits a series of stages: 1) Biological development of the human species, 2) Human civilization, technology, & the venture into space, 3) Cosmic consciousness or transcendence). Maybe these stages are signaled at the onset by the three ascending notes of "Thus Spake Zarathustra," and the monolith marks and influences each stage. The problem with HAL seems to be that it was programmed with “the mission” as the all-important objective, instead of being programmed with due regard for human life.
Kubrick wants each person to think and talk and ask questions about his work.
Dam now he has me thinking about what to say.